Ethics of Research involving animals
Appendix 5: Consultation with the public - continuation I
What is your view about the use of alternatives?
The majority of respondents who commented on this subject were in favour of increasing research into alternative methods. Views ranged from those who felt that practically all results currently obtained using animals were achievable by other means, to those who would like to see further use of alternatives to supplement animal research. It was proposed that research into alternatives should not focus on replacing each conventional procedure with one that does not involve animals; Instead entire alternative approaches could be investigated.
The view that research into alternatives could be better funded was widely expressed. There were a variety of suggestions as to potential sources of funding, including pharmaceutical companies, corporate taxes, taxpayers, research councils, charities and abolitionist groups. It was important to some respondents that a lack of funding might mean that researchers were currently unable to distinguish if alternatives were possible in principle. There was support for the establishment of a National Centre for the Three Rs, which would be dedicated to the development of alternatives in addition to the refinement of experimental procedures. Others felt that research on the Three Rs should be encompassed within mainstream science rather than separated from it. This was based on the view that specific earmarking of support for alternatives could be wasteful, and therefore these funds would be better spent on further research. Contrary to this opinion was the view from one respondent that concern about the Three Rs was a smokescreen to deflect attention from the fact that animal research was scientifically flawed. For example, some stated their belief that if research involving animals were completely prohibited, research into alternatives would result in a huge leap in capabilities as ‘necessity is the mother of invention’.
Several people would prefer to see more extensive use of human volunteers than was currently the case. They were anxious that future legislation would further reduce the research carried out on humans and human tissue and would therefore lead to increased animal use.
Scientists wrote to assert that, wherever possible, they already used alternative methods rather than animals and that peer review and review by funding bodies and the Home Office ensured that this was the case. They noted that animal research was expensive and inconvenient. They argued that alternatives did not always provide a similar level of complex information as experiments using animals. According to some of these respondents, alternatives offered simplified systems which could result in simplified and misleading data.
Those who held the opposing view contended that approaches using alternatives were not taken seriously by scientists and regulatory bodies. It was suggested that the latter, for example, could take a more positive view of alternative testing in toxicology studies. It was predicted that this would require more funding for validation.
Several respondents felt that it was important that scientists increase the extent to which they share their research results, including ‘negative’ results (i.e. results from research that was regarded as unsuccessful and which was not subsequently published). It was felt that greater sharing would reduce duplication and therefore animal use. However, it was also argued that it was improbable that two pharmaceutical companies, for example, would be working on exactly the same chemical entity and that a certain amount of replication was therefore an essential component of research. It was also suggested that published research papers could include more in-depth discussion of the methodologies used, including advice to other researchers regarding humane endpoints and potential welfare implications of research.